AURORA | As Colorado’s legislative session heats up, the city of Aurora has already taken a few positions on some of the legislation that has been pitched by state lawmakers.
“We have positions on several bills. Just want to give a quick update on those,” Aurora Intergovernmental Relations Manager, Liz Rogers. “There’s a package of bills we’ve been watching for the city around Fourth Amendment, privacy, warrant requests and public safety. Kind of encompassing all things.”
Here are some of the measures city officials are tracking and weighing in on:
Ban Government Purchase of Personal Data from Third Party, which aims to forbid government purchase of personal data from third parties.
- The city is taking an amend-it position, because staff is “working on trying to address some of the concerns that have come up with the city” and “will continue to look at amendments.”
Ban Government Access to Historical Location Info Database, which aims to prohibit a government entity that collects historical location information from sharing it with third parties and government agencies, also making it not a public record under the Colorado Open Records Act.
- The city is taking an amend-it position.
Adding Municipal Jails to County Jail Oversight Requirements, which aims to hold municipal jails, such as Aurora’s municipal detention center, to the same standards as county jails.
- The city is actively negotiating amendments and pushing back on what they say are costly facility requirements in the bill. The staff is “continuing to have meetings” and exchanging definition language with the sponsor.
“We’re not required to have a detention center, and I think the cost for changes were prohibitive,” said Mayor Mike Coffman. “As the bill was initially drafted, it was a position of the city manager, and I would concur with it, just to close, shut it down, because we’re not required to have it.”
Local Government Impact Hearings would create a forum through impact hearings for local governments to testify on how state legislation affects them fiscally and operationally.
- The city is taking a support position.
The Retail Theft Prevention Program would create a Retail Theft Prevention Advisory Board and allow a grant program in the Attorney General’s office, with no funding mechanism yet decided. It also includes seats for local government and local law enforcement, and it ties into the city’s organized retail crime strategy, Rogers said.
- The city is taking a support position on the bill.
A Strategy to Reduce and Prevent Homelessness, which would create a statewide housing strategy for homelessness prevention and resolution. It allows local governments to form special districts or authorities via IGAs and potentially seek voter‑approved taxes to fund housing and homelessness programs. This would benefit the Navigation Campus.
- The city supports the bill.
Funding for the Colorado DRIVES Account, which would increase revenue to the DRIVES account by redirecting $2 from each late vehicle registration fee from the Highway Users Tax Fund (HUTF) into DRIVES, starting July 1, 2027. Rogers said HUTF is a key funding source for city road paving, with a projected $16M for 2026.
- Staff recommended to take an amend-it position, specifically to remove the HUTF diversion of $2 from late fees.
Rights Violation in Immigration Enforcement Remedy, which would create a cause of action for violations of federal constitutional rights occurring during immigration enforcement.
- Staff recommendation is to monitor the bill.
- The committee was split: Lawson said she does not support the bill. Wiles said she does. After the position was taken to the city council to decide, the city landed on monitoring the bill.
Fairness and Transparency in Municipal Court, which would clarify the right to counsel in municipal court and ensure that counsel receives the same notice and discovery opportunities as at the state level. It also requires that all municipal court proceedings be open to public observation, including virtual access or streaming.
- Staff recommendation: Monitor the bill.
- Wiles said she wants to support the measure, because of increased court transparency and protection of defendants’ rights, but she said she is willing to accept just monitoring the bill for now to avoid overloading staff and since the city is largely in compliance. The city position coming out of committee was to monitor, and when the question was brought to the rest of city council, they chose to monitor as well.
Current positions on state bills are listed on the city website.